Royal Commision Into GM - Q & A

Q: Is 12 months
long enough to consider the issue?A: Genetic
modification research and development is a rapidly moving
area. A 12-month period for the Royal Commission gives
enough time for the public to have meaningful input into the
inquiry and for the Commission to provide a prompt response
to the Government on genetic modification issues. If the
Royal Commission continues for longer than this, it may be
overtaken by new developments in the technology.

Q: Why
have you opted for a voluntary moratorium - why not just
legislate?A: We believe the science and industry sectors
are keen to act responsibly on this matter. A voluntary
moratorium means that their concerns, as well as the
concerns of the public are being considered. If those
involved in the work agree to a moratorium then this gives
the best possible chance of it being adhered to. To
legislate could take longer and thus delay the Royal
Commission. And if the bill went to a select committee then
the arguments that should be presented to the Royal
Commission would go before the select committee

Q: How
long do you expect the negotiations on the moratorium to
take?A: We need to take the appropriate amount of time
to discuss these with the parties that will be affected and
reach agreement with them on the best way to move forward on
this. I am expecting that with goodwill from the scientific
community this can be done quickly. Officials are to report
progress within three months, by mid-July at the very
latest, hopefully by early June, when the RC begins its work
but not its public hearings.

Q: Is the Government, through
this moratorium, putting a stop to all genetic modification
work? How does this fit with the Government’s stated
support for the knowledge society?A: No. The
Government is stopping all GE research which poses risks to
the public and to the environment.

Q: What field tests
will still go ahead?

A: No field tests involving heritable
(reproductive) materials will go ahead. Any field test that
is already approved under the HSNO Act will be able to
continue provided the strict controls placed on it are
adhered to. The Government will be stepping up inspection of
these field tests to make sure that the conditions imposed
are complied with.

A new application for a field test will
proceed only if it meets the exemption criteria, i.e. if it
was for medical purposes, or if the test provided very
substantial benefits to New Zealand. These would include
economic, health and environmental benefits. An example of
a field test with a potential environmental benefit could
include developing biological controls for possums or other
serious pests to New Zealand.

There will be strict
controls on any field test so that all heritable materials
are removed and any organisms involved are securely
contained and properly disposed of at the end of the test.

Q: What field tests will be stopped?

A: The proposed
moratorium is designed to preserve New Zealand’s choices
about the use of genetic modification technology pending the
outcome of the Royal Commission. Signatories to the
voluntary moratorium would not be able to proceed with field
tests that provide only limited benefit to New Zealand.
This would include tests that grow seed only for overseas
use. Field tests would not be allowed if they posed a risk
of release of reproductive materials.

Q: Will the
moratorium apply to existing field tests?

A: No, field
tests already approved and with appropriate controls imposed
on them will continue. The Government will be stepping up
inspection of these field tests to make sure that the
conditions imposed are complied with.

Q: The
moratorium is too restrictive.

A: The moratorium will
limit some field tests. These are the tests that are of no
particular benefit to New Zealand science. In addition the
Government is seeking a greater level of assurance about the
containment measures established for those tests that are
occurring or likely to start during the Royal Commission
inquiry period.

We are not interfering with the HSNO
evaluation process for applications for field tests. What
we are doing is asking some researchers to delay some
aspects of research until the Royal Commission has given its
advice on the future use of genetic modification in New
Zealand.

Q: Why a Commission of 4 rather than 5
members?A: The size of the Commission is not a numbers
game. We have selected four highly skilled individuals that
have complementary areas of expertise to consider the issues
in front of the Royal Commission. Having more members for
the sake of it would be an expensive waste of taxpayers’
money.

Q: There are not enough scientists on the
Commission.

A: The science and medical community are well
represented on the Commission. The members are there to
hear and consider the evidence – not research the issues. I
have no doubt that the interested parties will bring all the
necessary information in front of the Commission. In
addition the Royal Commission will have a highly skilled
secretariat to service the inquiry throughout the 12-month
period, and it can seek expert advice on any subject.

Q:
What have other countries done about these issues? How can
we be sure that the risks that have been identified overseas
won’t apply to here?A: We are keeping in touch with
international developments. The situation here is not the
same as it is elsewhere so a lot of the information coming
in from overseas is not applicable.

Q: How can we be
sure that the system put in place to manage the risks will
work, that nothing will go wrong?A: I am confident that
the controls imposed by the ERMA and the extra monitoring we
are putting in place are as strict as possible. Q: What
progress has been made on genetically modified food
labelling?A: Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers
have made a decision in principle to label all genetically
modified foods. The details of the amended standard are
being worked through and we expect a final decision on the
shape of the labelling requirements to be made midyear.

Q:
What does the Royal Commission mean in terms of the
Biosafety Protocol?A: The protocol will be open for
signature next month but is unlikely to come into effect for
some years because there is a need for a minimum number of
countries to ratify it. Under the usual New Zealand
constitutional practice, ratification does not occur until
the domestic legislative framework is brought into line with
the obligations contained in the protocol. Prior to
ratification, the protocol will be tabled in Parliament in
line with our treaty making
practice.

In response to the challenges facing Scoop and the media industry we’ve instituted an Ethical Paywall to keep the news freely available to the public.
People who use Scoop for work need to be licensed through a ScoopPro subscription under this model, they also get access to exclusive news tools.

So Jacinda Ardern and Theresa May have signed a piece of paper promising peace in our time when it comes to our trade with Britain... Right now, a statement from Theresa May on Brexit has as much credibility as a statement by Donald Trump about North Korea’s plans for scrapping its nukes. Despite her recent crushing defeat in the Commons, May is continuing to playing chicken with Britain’s future, for personal and party advantage.

ALSO:

The latest Ministry of Social Development quarterly report show that a record number of people have received hardship assistance from work and income, with an additional 40,000 hardship payments made between September and December 2018, compared to the previous quarter of the same year... More>>

The needs of acute patients will be met during tomorrow's junior doctor strike, a DHB spokesperson says... Almost 3000 junior doctors are expected to walk off the job, which will affect all DHBs apart from West Coast District Health Board. More>>

Given the ambit of MBIE’s work, almost any form of social activity could qualify as being part of MBIE’s brief, so the privacy threats posed by this training programme are extensive. The current oversight safeguards seem threadbare to non-existent. More>>

ALSO:

‘Critique is no longer enough. If anything is to really change, we need to step away from the existing framework and take a first-principles approach to rethinking what will work for the 21st century.’ More>>